Hi kc, On 17/07/2023 21:41, k claffy wrote:
I agree it would greatly help to include the more precise terms. Note that Scott's current EPP draft is still using this term, citing the definition in 1912. Should the term be removed from Scott's draft, or acknowledged that it is now historic? If Scott replaces it with another more precise term, can we get that term in this document so that future uses can cite this document? Alternatively, instead of deprecating, the last sentence of that paragraph could be "Because...and now is not specific or clear as to the intended meaning, sufficient context may be required to remove undesired ambiguity." ( similar to 'validating resolver'? )
Thank you for your remarks. The chairs acknowledge that more precise terms are useful and desirable. For progress, we decided not to include newer terms of different types of broken delegation in the current rfc8499bis. More discussion on these terms is required, and the chairs and authors of the document feel that this should be written down in another draft.
We would like to invite you or other DNSOP participants to put your thoughts in a new draft to discuss with the WG and to come to more precise definitions of various broken delegations. This new draft (RFC) can later be referenced by the DNS Terminology document.
Best regards, -- Benno _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
